Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Blocking historical content / pov pushing

I was going by the Appleby's neutral statement that Thomas Jefferson treated his slaves by the norms of other slave masters. Stating that slavery made Jefferson a better person or exceptional then other slave owners is POV. Jefferson occassionally whipped his slaves. That is a neutral statement, only a fact. There is no statement that Jefferson was a cruel task master. That could be put into the article with a valid source. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's treatment of slaves is well established, covered by reliable sources and slaves testimony. As such this can be included. There is no RS that even approaches 'occasionally whipped', which is your pov, btw, and the way you have it written above makes it look like Jefferson himself did the whipping. It is also your pov that the source intended to 'endorse slavery'. You are simply reaching again. How can anyone take your concern for pov seriously when you've supported the speculations, lip service and opinionated commentary that has and still exists on the page? Once again, including historical content, by itself, is not asserting any one pov. Otoh, blocking selected facts is indeed asserting a pov. This is the Jefferson biography, an account about the man. The readers need to know that Jefferson made many efforts to make life for his slaves better. If the established historical facts show Jefferson as a "nice guy", well, that is unfortunate for you, apparently. You can't block these things because you don't happen to like the overall picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you both take a break from this until you've bought or borrowed this book and read the whole thing. Yopienso (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of caution. I scanned the book and came up with a few interesting items.

• (Jefferson) would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped ... He could not bear to have a servant whipped, no odds how much he deserved it.
• Monticello had a poultry yard and most raised their own vegetables. A typical Sunday is revealed in the household account book kept by one of Jefferson's (slaves?)..."
• One of Lafayette's companions talked to slaves in 1824, when they told him they were "perfectly happy"...
• it is the negative events that inspired the scattered references that can only suggest the vitality of religious beliefs in the Monticello slave community.

In any case, online viewing of the book is limited. It seems you have read the book so it might help if you presented whatever items you know of, pro or con, that sheds more light on Jefferson's treatment of slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The first quote is a statement by Edmund Bacon, one of Jefferson's overseers, and hence a primary source. We cannot accept that as fact without reasonable secondary analysis. I encourage you (again) to please read books, not snippets. Amazon is actually in the business of providing books to readers for a quite reasonable consideration. The cheapest copy is available for US$ 1.18 (plus $3.99 S&H). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources for Jefferson are usually permitted as they are referred to by numerous RS's for Jefferson. Also, Stanton, a secondary source, is presenting this material.
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. We can potentially use the source for an attributed statement ("Bacon, one of Jefferson's overseers, claimed..."). But we cannot uncritically accept the word of a slave overseer on the humane treatment of slaves any more than we can take Fidel Castro's word on the benevolence of the Cuban revolution, or Augusto Pinochet's word on the death of Salvador Allende. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanton maintains that Jefferson's slaves were whipped, both sick and healthy, in "Those Who Labor for My Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. Jefferson's oversear William Page was severly cruel. Beran Jefferson's Demons: Portrait of a Restless Mind states that Jefferson carried a small whip with him! Gwillhickers please do not push your POV that Jefferson was a nice guy slave owner. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are two Stanton references. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Those Who Labor for My Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello #1
• "Those Who Labor for My Happiness": Slavery at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello #2

Here is the Beran reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jefferson's Demons: Portrait of a Restless Mind

I think that the problem here is that we are assuming that Jefferson's views didn't change, and if he can be shown to be for or against something associated with slavery at one point in his life (or at least can be shown to have said something that might be suggestive of it) then he must have been that way throughout his life. This ignores the fact that his views, like everyone else's, changed and that you can't understand what his exact thought on a topic was just by what he said or did at one point. People also are confusing his dislike of aspects of slavery (the slave trade in particular) and his like or dislike of slavery broadly. People are therefore missing a lot of context and nuance, and ignoring much of his record to make a case based on wrong assumptions (he must have thought about something all his life the way he might have thought about it at one point). The fact is that his views were always changing, and often contradictory at the same point in his life. People here are trying to boil down his views on slavery into one grand theory that can be used to understand his views throughout his life, when you can only understand his views on slavery when you understand and are honest about the history of his views, how they changed, and the changing philosophy on the topic he adhered to.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Brutal treatment of slaves POV

The current article states that Jefferson's oversears treated Jefferson's slaves "brutally". Is this POV? Would it be better to state that Jefferson occasionally had his slaves whipped? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I don't see it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Open Choices has taken that phrase out in a previous edit. I apoligize.  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Previously the article had stated Jefferson had treated his slaves with brutality. This was POV. The phrase has been taken out by Open Choices. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous POV statement:

Jefferson did not allow his slaves to be overworked and rarely had them whipped except as a last resort believing it was better to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious, however there were cases where overseers sometimes treated them brutally Cmguy777 (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion

The section under religion looks very misleading to me. It seems to read as if Jefferson had a close respect for Jesus Christ, and was a sympathetic adherant to Christianity. The truth is much more nuanced than that (if one reads the fuller article on Jefferson and religion). There is not even a reference to his sympathies in later life to unitarianism. Section could do with a thorough rewrite I suggest. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Hi, Contaldo. If Jefferson was indeed sympathetic to 'Unitarianism' and you have a reliable source that says so, go ahead and include this content in the section, but try to keep it brief and make sure it is placed properly in with other events, etc. As for 'rewrites', I suggest you present a draft, making an effort to preserve the basic facts and sources, and submit it to the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, not at all suggesting he "was a sympathetic adherant to Christianity." Only improvement I can suggest would be to add, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know," to underscore his disapproval of the churches of his day. Fyi, he allowed church meetings in the Capitol and even attended them. Yopienso (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The section is not misleading in my opinion. In fact, the first sentence reads that Jefferson did not follow orthodox Christianity. There are three essentials to the Christian faith. The first belief is that Jesus is God. The second is that Jesus performed miracles. The third is the repentance of sins and acknowledgement that Jesus was crucified and ressurected on the third day. Jefferson apparently did not believe or doubted the miracles of Jesus since he took them out of his Bible. He did not believe in repentance of sins. His views on materialism verus spiritualism are interesting. Christians believe that God is an all powerful invisible being that created nature. Apparently Jefferson viewed if you can't see something then it is not there. Modern scientific Quantum mechanics theory I believe allows for alternative universes that we can't see. The main thing concerning Jefferson is that he did not believe in miracles. Does his bible omit the crucifixtion ressurection of Christ and his assention to heaven? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Applebaum source

I believe Applebaum is a good source on Jefferson and slavery. I believe he could be used instead of the Monticello web site. Editors can use page numbers. Applebaum does not seem to have an agenda and discusses Thomas Jefferson slavery in depth. I believe Applebaum would be a good source and reference to expand the slavery section in the Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Book{Source53,
 author =       {Applebaum, },
 title =        {   },
 publisher =    {   },
 year =         {   },
}

Please fill in the blanks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the Applebaum information into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Applebaum, Herbert A. (1996). Colonial Americans at Work. University Press of America, Inc.

Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Planned proposal on slavery section

Here is a planned proposal on the slavery section. The goal is to get Thomas Jefferson to good article status. The only way for this to occur is for all editors to drop any POV issues, including myself. Here is my proposal that I believe can allow editors to work together with limited edit conflicts. These are suggestions. Once the slavery section is cleaned up, then the next step is to get TJ to GA. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Use book or article author references on the slavery section. Gwillhickers may have mentioned this, but Monticello.org does not state who writes their material. The current article appears to not have any Internet sources without author. I believe that is good for the article section on slavery.
• Editors can choose the top 5 book or article sources that would be used in the TJ slavery segment. The segment does not need to be oversourced. Modified: Editors limit the number of citations in the slavery segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Avoid blanket statements.
• Allow alternative opinions on whether Jefferson was anti-slavery or not anti-slavery.
• Save detailed statements for the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article.

Comments

This section is for comments on the proposal to improve the Thomas Jefferson slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Finkleman and Ferling as two author sources. Other sources could be pro Jefferson as anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend Bernstein for balance and for addressing the ambiguity and contradictions. Yopienso (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bernstein would be good. Miller is good for the opening. I believe in keepin the same format, but reducing the size. Rjensen and yourself, Yopienso, did a good job writing the new material. Much of the material that is currently in the article needs to be moved to the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Davis is a good source also. The 5 sources was only a suggestion, however, I believe best that the slavery segment not be over sourced. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't the number of sources, but the number of citations. As with other contentious articles, this one has the unpleasant feature of citing nearly every assertion. This is not for the convenience of the reader, nor for scholarship, but because of in-house wrangling. I myself think Monticello.org is reliable for two reasons despite, as Quark points out, its operating a tourist attraction. 1. Look at the board of advisors. 2. Scholarly books contradict each other, too, and may have errors. I don't think it best to use just 5 scholarly books as sources. Even my little papers cite to far more than that. Yopienso (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Monticello.org is a website trying to sell tickets to Jefferson's plantation. It has a vested interest in his reputation and is not a scholarly source. We can use it if it doesn't contradict the work of scholars in secondary sources, but when it does (as with its claim that Jefferson was always anti-slavery), the nearly uniform view among scholars that this is not true has to be used. This is a question of historical fact, not whether Jefferson was justified in something. Whenever a secondary source from scholars goes up against something else, the scholarly source always wins, according to Wikipedia policy.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Yopienso (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Yopienso, limiting the number of citations is good. Quarkgluonsoup, using an author is best whenever stating that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Both scholar points of view need to be used in the article concerning Jefferson was anti-slavery or not anti-slavery. The reader needs to be given enough information to make their own decisions. I agree that Monticello.org has a vested interest in Thomas Jefferson. I was unware that they sold tickets to visit Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

[Insert]: It's an exceedingly weak or irrelevant argument. Museums, in the US, charge admission. It's just as easy to charge to see Simon Lagree, as it is a Saint (perhaps more so). However, the separate point, above, about using and employing secondary sources is correct, policy based, and well reasoned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a legitimate question about what his exact views on slavery were, (most of this should be addressed in the Jefferson slavery article, not this article) but the issue here are claims that he was always anti-slavery. He can't be always anti-slavery and sometimes pro-slavery, and there isn't really a scholarly dispute whether he was ever pro-slavery in some way. I think this is what is holding up this section. If anything, one solution might be to be as vauge as possible here and to not say anything definitive. Saying he was always anti-slavery is very definitive.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree Quarkgluonsoup. Jefferson did view slavery as degrading towards white society as he stated in Notes on the State of Virginia and he was different then Southern slave owners in that he publically addressed the subject of domestic slavery until 1785 and that he personally viewed himself as anti-slavery as Ferling as pointed out. He publically addressed the subject of the slave trade until 1807. With that said, Ferling points out the Manumission Law of 1782 was passed while Jefferson was not a member of the Virginia legislature implying that Jefferson was an obstructionist. There are Jefferson's views that blacks were inferior and that freed blacks needed to be deported, rather then be citizens living in a white society. This more then anything may have kept blacks enslaved in the South since Jefferson viewed whites as blacks caretakers. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Finkleman goes into depth on the manumission issue, and makes it clear that he successfully obstructed it. As chairman of the committee to revise Virginia's laws, Jefferson rejected attempts by the committee members allow voluntary manumission in the revised laws. I think another cause of the confusion here is that people are defining "anti-slavery" in different ways. His record suggested he (like everyone else of his generation) always had some problem with it, but this is not the same as being "anti-slavery".

There were slaveowners who were anti-slavery, such as Ben Franklin and arguably George Mason and George Washington, along with many other smaller figures whom Finkleman discusses. What they usually had in common was that they freed all their slaves at some point, and typically didn't buy and sell them as often as Jefferson did. Most even joined some emancipation group, which Jefferson never did. Jefferson didn't oppose slavery but rather opposed the effects of slavery on whites. The article needs to be clear that this was the basis of what hostility he had to the institution, not that he was concerned for the well being of the slaves. Almost nothing in his written record suggests that he was, and his actions as a slaveholder make it clear that it wasn't a large concern for him.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert:As mentioned before, I believe the article needs to avoid blanket statements such as Jefferson was not anti-slavery or Jefferson was anti-slavery. The slavery segment needs to focus on Jefferson's rhetoric and actions for or against slavery. His obstruction of the Manumission law needs to be mentioned in the article, without specifically stating that this was not an anti-slavery position. The reader is intelligent enough to make up their own minds. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Q', You sound like Finkleman is the only source you've ever read on Jefferson. And your claims are weasel. Didn't sell slaves as much? Jefferson on numerous occasions made it clear he was opposed to slavery for a number of reasons, and many RS's also confirm he was always morally opposed to slavery, always. You've mentioned one reason but twisted it to mean Jefferson was only concerned about whites. As for your comment that Jefferson thought slaves were little more than "animals", this also tells us you don't do much reading and have somehow ignored a lifetime of evidence that clearly shows Jefferson's interaction with slaves and his opposition to slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there is no need to be an obstructionist editor. Quarkgluonsoup and I were having a good conversation and then you immediately start with your negative comments. Editors need to have the freedom to discuss the article. The goal is to get Jefferson to GA. Nothing has yet been added to the article and your continual accusatory tone in your own arguments does not help resolve the Jefferson and slavery section of this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"obstructionist editor"?? All I have done was add a small amount of historical context, days ago, the likes of which have been removed mostly. A few days ago I reversed a couple of my reverts hoping Q' would slow down, but that obviously is not his concern, at all. -- "Nothing has yet been added to the article"?? The section is almost four pages long. You're not even rational. And please do not speak to me about my "tone" while the page is being tossed like a salad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I was speaking in terms of the talk section not the actual article. If we can keep the rhetoric toned downed just enough, I believe the slavery section will be resolved. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First sentence test

Here is a first sentence test for the opening of the slavery section:

"From the beginning, Thomas Jefferson, was morally opposed to slavery, and was outspoken in his view that the institution was destructive to society." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem: he wasn't morally opposed to slavery. How about this:

"Thomas Jefferson's views on slavery were complex--some aspects of it he supported, while others he opposed.

Maybe we should just be vague on this point?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with that statement, Quarkgluonsoup, yet the reader does not have anytime to make their own decision. Being morally opposed did not mean he did not enjoy the material benefits from slavery. How about this:

Thomas Jefferson, from the beginning, was outspoken in his view that slavery was morally destructive to society. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is similar to Rjensen's statement, but I believe makes sense. He did write in Notes on the State of Virginia, his moral opposition to slavery. Ferling, who is critical of Jefferson, acknowledges this. This does not mean that all of Jefferson's actions were anti-slavery or opinions were anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When people want to cite his words for showing that he was concerned for blacks or that he had moral issues with slavery, they typically cite that line from Notes on the State of Virginia but they are vague and followed by a long argument about how corrupting it is for whites. Finkleman specially notes how weak this line of argument is, and that any other quotes of his on the morality of slavery are rare or non-existent. We can't take a single vague line of his, read much more into it than there was, and assume that he always thought this way, especially when he never before or after echos this opinion.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cm', Q', thank you for making this effort in the midst of all the calamity. IMO we are going to need more than one sentence to open a topic like this one. Below is my suggestion for an intro' to the section, using few details, while equal footing has been given to both camps among historians.

Thomas Jefferson was born into a society that greatly depended on slavery. While his family owned slaves he opposed the practice of slavery in his youth and during his life he made many attempts to end the practice but ultimately failed. Jefferson is considered by many historians to have always been an opponent of slavery while many other historians do not share this view, criticizing him for various inconsistencies.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is good, Gwillhickers, but are we to keep the same format in the current article with three sections? Jefferson, in his enlightenment ideals was attempting to be at the forefront of the slavery question in Virginia. In 1769 he proposed manumission and deportation, unsuccessfully. In 1782, the Virginia legislature liberally manumitted slaves without deportation while Jefferson was not in the legislature. Ferling states that Jefferson wanted to be known as a foe of slavery. I agree that mentioning Jefferson lived in a society of slavery is important. I believe we need to avoid blanket statements and stay with the specifics of what Jefferson actually supported. For example Jefferson supported banning the importation of slaves. This was primarily done to control the slave population and increase the price of tobacco. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cm'. Remember we're talking about the intro. The 'specifics' were very general and factual, no 'blanket statements' or views. i.e. Jefferson was born in a slave owing society, he opposed it from the beginning and historians have differing views as to what this amounts to. As we discussed not long ago, regarding the 100's of historians for Jefferson, we need to keep the section summarized with general and neutral historical commentary at the end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying that he was born into a slave society is not telling the reader something they didn't already know, and functions as an attempt to justify Jefferson's pro-slavery views. It thus has the character of something you would find in an essay, not an encyclopedia entry.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Wrong. Many people don't know the first thing about Jefferson, much less the details of his family. If you feel including basic historical content is something that will justify Jefferson dealings with slavery then you no doubt want to remove all historical content. At this point I find it difficult to place much faith in your activity here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, in my opinion, mentioning Virginia was a slave society is to give background information that Jefferson was one of many slaveowners, not to justify slavery. There was a slavery economics that I believe is important for the reader to know. Jefferson was anti-slavery for pragmatic economic reasons, as well as moral. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "anti-slavery" you mean "broadly opposed slavery and worked to end it" then Jefferson wasn't anti-slavery, and if by "moral objections" you mean "concern for the blacks", then he had no moral objections to it. He didn't propose a manumission law, he prevented one from being enacted. Finkleman specifically disputes Ferling's claim that Jefferson was known for opposing slavery. Finkleman notes that Ferling doesn't state where he got that claim from, and says that it simply wasn't true. If we mention that Jefferson lived in a slave society, it comes off as apologizing for or justifying him, and the reader is well aware of the fact that Virginia in the late 18th century was a slave society. I agree that we should avoid blanket statements, although claiming that he morally opposed slavery simply isn't historically accurate, and RSs can be used to dispute this claim.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Q', as I mentioned moral opposition to slavery does not mean that Jefferson opposed the material benefits of slavery. Mentioning that Jefferson's white supremacy and Finkleman's view that Jefferson lacked of concern of blacks needs to be in the article. I agree Jefferson obstructed the 1782 manumission law because there was no deportation requirement. Jefferson did propose the 1769 manumission law that included deportation. Ferling states Jefferson wanted to be known as a foe of slavery. That is not the same as he was known the foe of slavery. Jefferson was an exception because he morally spoke out against slavery. Ferling states that Jefferson suggested to not being committed to the preservation of slavery, i.e. his 1769 manumission proposal. Ferling states that Jefferson, "clamed to be a dedicated foe of slavery." Ferling was not stating that Jefferson was a dedicated foe of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1782 law was a different matter. The 1769 manumission law was obstructed by Jefferson, not proposed by him. I noticed that a lot of material in this article comes from William Randall. Both Onuf and Finkleman heavily criticize Randall's biography of Jefferson (see [1], page 199-200, especially footnotes 21 and 22). Finkleman attacks Randall's book for "unrestrained exaggeration and misrepresentation" which has been "thoroughly demolished by serious scholars". According to Onuf, Randall's book "bears a superficial resemblance to a serious work of scholarship" that isn't as much as biography as "a student term paper that has metastasized to grotesque proportions." It looks like the claim that Jefferson proposed a manumission law in 1769 comes from Randall, a claim (per Finkleman and Onuf) which has "no evidence or citation" and "Jefferson never proposed such a design; rather, as chairman of the committee that was charged with revising the law of Virginia, he absolutely refused to allow such a plan, written by others, to be considered by the state's legislature."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There was much concern and debate then about what to do with all of the freed slaves, who if manumitted, would have been largely left to roam around with no shelter, food, etc. Claiming Jefferson was not opposed to slavery on this note is baseless. Jefferson expressed concern for the general welfare of slaves in many other ways, including the way his slaves were treated, a general rule that was practiced. Again, he fought slavery in his lawyers years, while drafting the DOI and during his several attempts at emancipation legislation, not to mention when he outlawed the slave trade, with many RS's that say so. Established evidence. The Finkleman opinion doesn't change this. Also, please do not try to play 'RS cop' by using someone like Finkleman as your badge. If you have a legitimate complaint about a given source, say so, don't give us the 'Finkleman sez' routine. If you also feel monticello.org is not a RS you might want to look at all the items in the Jefferson article that currently use them as a source. There are about sixteen. At this point we need to start thinking about the basics first i.e. the Intro', and section/page length.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Q', where does Finkelman state Jefferson obstructed the 1769 manumission law? That is important. Where does Finkelman state Ferling was inaccurate? Gwill', this article needs specific information in order to be neutral. We have been trying to get the first sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

[2], page 199-200, especially footnotes 21 and 22Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought Jefferson wrote that he had proposed this plan. Mentioning the 1769 plan would be important regarless if Jefferson was for or against. There appears to be controversy whether he actually submitted such a plan. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is controversy, but rather a book heavily criticized by scholars made a claim that is factually incorrect. If there is any doubt, it shouldn't be included at all, but ultimately Jefferson stopped other legislators from proposing it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you fellows please put this ta'do about the opinion of a couple sources (among hundreds for Jefferson) on hold? First things first please. Cm' we can achieve neutrality by simply including established historical facts. 'Jefferson did this, but didn't do that ... he also did this but failed to to that. Jefferson didn't go to church much and should have cleaned his fingernails more often after Martha died. But since Martha died what was the point? Sally didn't mind. This debate is becoming a blur, so you'll have to bear with me this evening. Your are discussing one minor point, at one point in time, about Jefferson's dealing with an ambiguous piece of legislation that did not address the fate of freed slaves. Trying to inflate this into something that undermines Jefferson's anti-slavery views doesn't even begin to compare to his many attempts to abolish slavery, beginning with the DOI on through to when he outlawed the slave trade. A monumental event. These sort of musings are trivial, highly debatable and distracts from the effort to get basic issues conceded first. i.e. Section intro' and section length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, are you suggesting that you will block any historical views that state Jefferson is not anti-slavery? If that is so this article will go nowhere. Finkelman stated historians have manipulated historical facts in order to present Jefferson as a foe of slavery. Go ahead Gwillhickers, you and other editors can worship Jefferson, the idol. I will worship Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Block? Idol? Jesus? What are you talking about? This is just more of your horn blowing. Please stop. 'Finkleman sez'. A lot of other historians 'sez' also. You can include his 'view' in the section, however, as I've said, we will have to introduce other views and historical content to set the record straight. We don't want to mislead the readers with isolated out of context speculations from one source, do we? Again, you are trying to use speculations to undermine a life time of established evidence that shows Jefferson opposing slavery throughout his life. It's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I appreciate your admiration for Thomas Jefferson. However, I was upset that there is a constant attempt to block Finkelman from the article or any other source who viewed that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Finkelman stated that Jefferson has been deified. That is why I mentioned idol worship. I will make an effort to keep the issue on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to 'block' Finkelman. At the same time using this once source as the basis to your overall view that Jefferson somehow was not an opponent of slavery raises pov issues. You are not using Finkelman, or anyone else, to introduce historical content, you are primarily using this individual to voice speculations about 'inconsistencies'. -- Lets be clear about that major distinction. -- And please be reminded that Finkelman is on record for saying "Jefferson hated the negro". This is a fringe claim and is a big departure from many of the historians who simply feel Jefferson was not a consistent opponent of slavery. Such language exposes Finkelman as anything but an objective historian. Why you chose to cling to this individual is your own personal business, apparently. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Might I interject a helpful distinction here? Jefferson's "pro or anti-slavery" POV may have been nuanced and different at different points in his life. For example, In drafting the Declaration of Independence, TJ's first draft blamed "The Christian King of Europe" for the slave trade; the South walked out and he was forced to strike it out, which according to Historian Joseph J. Ellis, he never got over. I think it can be agreed that he always wanted the Slave Trade abolished; the merchant-ship human-trafficking stopped (for whatever reasons). Whether it was to make tobacco and his own slaves more valuable or give Virginia an unfair labor advantage is immaterial (if that was the worst case, just for example): But most of his life he opposed the Slave Trade . In his 1785 book "Notes on the State of Virginia" he suggests outlawing slavery in the Western territories and new states and emancipating all new offspring of Slaves for example by 1800, but seems not to include existing Virginia slaves in the proposed emancipation. That's if I understand what he was proposing to the French. His book was written anonymously in France (later in London) and when Federalists back in the US learned of it, his correspondence reveals, according to Ellis, that he was extremely worried what his slave-holding neighbors would think of him once they learned he was the author of a book condemning the immoral institution of slavery. He attacked both religion and slavery and inter-racial offspring in NOTSOV, and his political enemies used that to claim he was godless and against the very slavery he practiced. The nasty election of 1800, maybe, burned him out on his earlier abolitionist stands. In 1802? of course, his alleged affair with Sally hit Federalist Newspapers complete with poems. Sally was possibly the mulatto daughter of his father-in-law according to other slaves at the plantation and looked just like his dead wife, so try to put yourself in TJ's nightmare for a minute. Inter-racial offspring via slaves were common on Southern Plantations according to numerous accounts and the horror of possibly enslaving your own children (Sally's son Tom) or half-sisters of your wife (Sally Hemmings) was a real possibility. TJ knew slavery was immoral, as he stated in "Notes on the State of Virginia". Statements like: "I tremble for my country" and "I pray there is no just God" [paraphrasing] seem to be moral admissions of his, never intended for an American audience. Ellis claims he worried about what we would think of him, and erased and modified historical documents to change posterity's judgement of him. Source: 1996 "American Sphinx, The Character of Thomas Jefferson" ISBN 0-679-44490-4. Apparently, TJ also considered importing German peasants to replace deported black slaves. Would they have been employees or slaves? I honestly don't know. Not sure TJ knew either. The great man was a collection of paradoxes, so I think this is where a lot of the confusion and disagreement comes from when the question of whether he was "anti-slavery" comes up. He was definitely "Anti-Slave Trafficking" or "Anti-Slave Trade" Ellis claims, in private writings that all the founders knew that their two biggest failures were the failure to end slavery and the mistreatment of the Indians and they worried what we would think of them. Guilt and blaming Briton for the mess of slavery seem to be powerful motives for wanting to appear abolitionist without actually getting it done. I also recall that in his twilight years, Jefferson was actually against emancipation at the end, fearing it would cause a civil war. He was correct: It did. So maybe, "Anti-Slavery" is the wrong term to describe the biggest landholder in Virginia who used it constantly on his labor intensive, poor soil farms on top of a ridge. After he wrote NOTSOV, Ellis reveals that he enslaved "his boys" 10-16 years old in a nail factory which by his own accounts was a dawn to dusk sweatshop. All this, by the way, was NOT what I wanted to learn about the greatest president America ever had. But in all fairness to Jefferson, he didn't invent slavery; it had been part of the British Empire and human world forever. It seems only fair to mention that Northern merchants and banks funded and sailed the ships of the slave trade, while at the same time denouncing the South for it's use of slaves. Must have driven the poor man insane. 121.54.54.46 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First sentence test edit 2

OK. I combined the ideas that were given above into two sentences for an introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson was outspoken in his view that slavery was morally destructive to American society. His views on slavery and African Americans are considered complex; many historians viewed that he was always an opponent of slavery, while other historians do not share this view, criticizing him for various inconsistencies."

If you remove the word "morally" and replace "many historians" with "some historians" this could work.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not bad, but we still have to 'place' Jefferson in a setting as this is the introduction.

Thomas Jefferson came from a society that largely relied on slavery. Beginning early in his life he was outspoken in his view against slavery feeling it was morally destructive to both the people who were slaves and to American society. His views on slavery and Africans are considered complex; many historians regard Jefferson as an opponent of slavery, while other historians do not share this view, criticizing him for various inconsistencies."
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

He was not "outspoken in his view against slavery", and I can actually give a citation to prove that negative. He also said next to nothing on its negative effects on the slaves.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems inaccurate to pointedly state that Jefferson was "outspoken" against slavery when scholars frequently criticize him for his public silence on the issue in the second half of his life.--Other Choices (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : It would be highly inaccurate to ignore a life time of opposition to slavery because of Jefferson's general silence during his presidency, and it seems a couple of editors are brushing aside the outlawing of the slave trade as if it were nothing. Once again, there are many RS's that have Jefferson opposing slavery right up into his few final years. All you are doing here is picking at inconsistencies and trying to stretch them into something that you hope will overshadow the big picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

By all means, we have to give TJ his historical setting. We are writing for the general public, not ourselves, who are obsessed with TJ detail. Some people coming here will know very little about TJ or his times.

"Beginning" has to go, as I've insisted in the past. TJ, as a young lawyer, got in people's faces, but after that he was more nuanced and even, as has been said so often, silent.

You can't prove a negative, Quark; Gwillickers will have to come up with quotes from Jefferson, not quotes from historians, or fall back on "some historians say. . ."

Most important: As Quark has mentioned, we're stumbling on what is meant by anti- and pro-slavery. We can't even agree on what we mean by slavery. As I said a few days ago: What's confusing this issue is the varying definitions of "slavery" and the difference between TJ's theory and his practice. Sometimes wrt to Jefferson "slavery" means the institution itself and the idea of human bondage. Other times it means the economic system under which he labored. Then again, it refers to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The idea of human bondage troubled him, but he could find no remedy for the economy that required it. He could cut England out of their share. Some say writing the DOI was an example of outspokenness against slavery. I think we need to show what he wrote and what he did rather than attach ill-defined tags. Read his Sept. 10, 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, which contains the famous line, ". . . there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." Then show what he sacrificed. (Nothing, right?) Yopienso (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good start, but it also shows the danger of simply quoting his lines to prove points that the editors want (this is why Wikipedia policy puts secondary sources by scholars above all other, and prohibits original research). If we were to use the letter to Cooper, we should also use his letter to Cole (they were both written at the same time). In it, he attacked the Haitian revolution, miscegenation, made racist comments and beged Cole not to free his slaves (Jefferson wrote the letter in response to one from Cole, who was freeing his slaves and trying to convince Jefferson to do the same; Jefferson refused to do so, explained why manumission was wrong and begged Cole not to free his slaves either).

Quoting Jefferson and making arguments based off of that is original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia. What we need to be doing is quoting secondary sources by scholars. We also need to agree on what "anti-slavery" means and what "moral opposition to slavery" means. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on all points but one. I linked to that page for the letter for convenience, but was actually looking at it in a Cambridge book edited by Appleby. That quote is in almost all the literature.

Disagree on the interpretation of begging Coles not to free slaves. You didn't mention why, which TJ did. Leaving out part of the facts gives a distorted view. Note that any decent person of the day would have attacked miscegenation. It was illegal everywhere then, and in some places during my lifetime. Yopienso (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to take my word on Jefferson begging Cole not to free his slaves, read [[3], page 227. What facts do you think this leaves out? Do you have any scholarly sources that say that that "any decent person of the day" would have attacked miscegenation or that it was illegal everywhere then?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't have to take your word for it, as I've studied the letter. I know he begs Coles not to free his slaves. Look at section 1346 here for his reasons.

I am mistaken that it was illegal everywhere. It was socially and morally unacceptable to most people. See Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States for details. Yopienso (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken, and are assuming that racial views in the late 19th century were the same as those in the late 18th century. Remember, blacks could even vote in some states in the late 18th and early 19th century. The word "miscegenation" wasn't even coined until a half century after Jefferson's day. Do you have any citations that it was unacceptable to most in the late 18th century?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's all right there in the article I linked to. Unsurprisingly, clearer, more concise info is available off-Wiki. Here's a list. Here's a book; see pp. 213-214, 358. Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First sentence test edit 3

Hopefully this edit can work. This is the final attempt to get the first sentences into the slavery segement. I have incoorperated prior discussions into three sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia agriculture planter society that economically depended on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, having inherited slaves from his father at an early age, Jefferson viewed that slavery was morally destructive to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as an opponent of slavery, while other scholars do not share this view, having been critical for his various inconsistencies."

BetterQuarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How's this?

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as an opponent of slavery, while more recent scholars are critical of his inconsistencies and contradictions. Yopienso (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Good job Yopienso. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy's was better. This works if you change "many historians" to "some historians" or keep it and say "while many other historians disagree." Currently, it says "most" historians think he was anti-slavery, and says nothing of those who think he was not anti-slavery, as though none think this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, I tweaked that while you were commenting, deleting a phrase. What do you think now?

Quark, I'm pretty sure of the "many" and think you missed the change of tense: many have regarded and then more recent are. I intended to show a shifting view. There may be a better way of phrasing that. Yopienso (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How's this?

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are considered complex; historians have long regarded Jefferson as a champion of liberty, while more recent scholars are critical of his inconsistencies and contradictions.

Or,

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are complex, leaving a legacy of inconsistencies and contradictions. Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The second is probably the best I have seen suggested here by anyone, including myself.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: This one is good. I am not sure other editors would approve. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Q' raised a good point. The more recent historians disagree with the other historians. I added disagree. Readers need to be aware that there are scholars who do not agree or "do not share" the view that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are considered complex; historians have long regarded Jefferson as a champion of liberty, while more recent scholars disagree and are critical of his inconsistencies and contradictions.

This one keeps the subject on slavery, not liberty. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are considered complex; historians have long regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while more recent scholars disagree and are critical of his inconsistencies and contradictions.

We need a final agreement. The first two sentences are acceptable for the article. That last sentence needs one more tweak and then we can have editors vote for acceptance. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Yopienso's last suggestion is best. "Scholars" (i.e. as a group) have not thought of Jefferson as "a foe of slavery", nor have they thought of him a "a champion of liberty", which is more a popular conception that waxes and wanes over time and doesn't belong in the slavery section even if it were true.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Q'. We can try that one. Here is another version. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; biographers have long regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while more recent scholars disagree and are critical of his inconsistencies and contradictions." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the other version from Yopenisio. We can vote on the top two versions. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are complex, leaving a legacy of inconsistencies and contradictions.

Your modification is better than your prior versions (though I would still tweak a word or two), but I think the second one (by Yopenisio) is best, partly due to its briefness.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My concern is that other editors may disagree with Y's version, although in my opinion, brief and to the point. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Final two first sentences versions

After discussion and modification two versions of the first sentences in the slavery section of the Thomas Jefferson biography have been completed. Please feel free to vote and/or give opinions on the final versions. All editors may not agree however, the first sentences are the most important in establishing neutrality of the slavery segment. Please do not edit the final versions until conscensus has been reached. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Version #1:

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are complex, leaving a legacy of inconsistencies and contradictions.

Version #2:

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; biographers have long regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while more recent scholars disagree and are critical of his inconsistencies and contradictions."

Cmguy777's view: I believe Version #1 is most accurate, however, I believe Verson #2 contains the statement that his biographers regard Jefferson as anti-slavery. Either one is good, however, if any other editors demand that biographers are mentioned, that is fine. I believe each sentence needs to be referenced with an author source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The big problem with #2 is that it suggests that his biographers as a group considered him anti-slavery, when not all did. It also ignores the fact that historians and other Jefferson scholars have been much more skeptical of these claims than some of his biographers, and suggests that they even these scholars don't necessarily disagree that he was anti-slavery . If we include #2, we would have to expand on it to add context, which goes against the goal of making the section much shorter and opens up more areas of possible disagreement.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems we're leaving our some very basic stuff. Historians, new and old, share differing opinions. There are many prominent modern scholars who do not share the Finklemen view. We've been through this before. Historians needs to be referred to the same way. I see above it is "biographers have long regarded ... " while it is "scholars" who do not share the view. We need to keep the language neutral and the same. . And contradiction is a pov. The so called contradictions are easily explained with historical content. inconsistencies is better and is not a conclusive term as is 'contradiction'. New comers to the debate need to review talk history. Again, we need to keep the language neutral.

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to both slaves and American society. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; Many historians have long regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies."

Also, 'section length' still needs to be addressed by some editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We can eliminate "contradiction" and keep "inconcistencies". The "historians" versus "scholars" debate is side tracking the overall view there is disagreement concerning Thomas Jefferson viewed as anti-slavery. Why is there a need to add more context, Q'? We need editor consencus. Here is another version. The term American society includes both slaves and slave owners. Economics needs to be in the first sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; many historians have long regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is better, but the word "long" should be deleted.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

American society is not being clear, and it can easily be assumed by the reader that slaves were not part of society because they were slaves. We can include the word 'economically' , remove the word 'long' and should be clear about American society and slaves.

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and free man alike. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies."

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we are making progress. The term "long" is ambiguous and undefined. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to American society. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Q'. Do we have a reference that Jefferson's enlightenment views on slavery and Africans are complex? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have several that say he was always opposed. In any case, we need to be clear. 'American society' can easily be taken to mean 'not slaves' by any given reader, so we need to use definitive language in no uncertain terms.

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and free man alike. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies."

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I can accept that Gwillhickers, for the sake of concensus. I believe if we get a reference that Jefferson's views on slavery and Africans are complex this paragraph is a go for the article. I am not sure how Rjensen would view the paragraph. I believe the paragraph is neutral and allows room for expansion in the article segment on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaffe (1996), Who Were the Founding Fathers? refers to Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia as complex views on slavery and African Americans. Page 209. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now all we have to do is source the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Virginia planter society was completely dependent on slavery; the non-slaving yeomen weren't part of planter society. Here is how I would tweak the suggested paragraph:

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society that was economically dependent on slavery. Although a (lifelong) slaveowner himself, he believed that slavery was morally unsupportable and harmful to both slave and master. His views on the institution and Africans are the subject of continuing debate. Many scholars have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies.--Other Choices (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a good edit, Other Choices, however, I believe your paragraph is essentially stating the same thing with different words. Life long slave owner is not entirely accurate. For eleven years he was the son of a slave owner Peter Jefferson. Your statement "he believed that slavery was morally unsupportable and harmful to both slave and master." could be incoorperated into the paragraph. I like the term "morally unsupportable", but I prefer the use of the word "freeman" over "master". We need to get the references for each sentence in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how we'd source "freeman." If we used "master," then Jefferson's famous phrase "most boisterous passions" is frequently quoted in the secondary sources.--Other Choices (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Final draft paragraph with references

Here is final draft paragraph with added references. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery morally unsupportable to both slave and free man alike. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies."" Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Stylistic point--"largely economically" is awkward. I don't think the "largely" is necessary or even true; I think the Virginia planter society was totally dependent on slavery. (That's why TJ couldn't free his slaves.) If it's generally agreed otherwise, I would say, "in a Virginia planter society economically dependent, for the most part, on slavery."

I think "to both slave and master" is much better than "slave and free man." We can't mitigate the central slave-master relationship; replacing "master" with "free man" isn't tight at all, and suggests all kinds of possibilities. The slave-owning free blacks didn't seem to think slavery was morally unsupportable. Also, "alike" is redundant. (If others prefer "free man," I suggest simply "morally unsupportable to both slave and free.") Yopienso (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Largely is more accurate, given the debate that involves that issue. There was much trade and commerce throughout Virginia and elsewhere in the south that was not "economically dependent" on slavery. Careful with the pov. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso. The term "master" is fine. I suppose slave masters and their children were free. Changes have been made. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery morally unsupportable to both slave and master. His Enlightenment views on the institution and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies."" Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Cm' you keep changing it. Jefferson said slavery was bad for both slave and white society, he didn't limit it to "slave and master". Slave and free man includes the "master", which is sort of a modern day buzz word and smacks of nearsighted academic pov. Also, "morally unsupportable" is vague and unclear. We also need to return 'largely', with 'economically' as to claim Virginia et al was completely dependent on slavery is a highly debatable pov. Whites outnumbered slaves by a high ratio and most did not own slaves and had other skills and trades not requiring slavery. Now it seems we're moving backwards. We need to use neutral and clear language. Your original 'Final draft paragraph with references' immediately above this last version is just fine except for "morally unsupportable". We need to change it to "he believed slavery harmful to both slave and free man alike". It's simple, definitive and neutral. Let's use it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems we already know from preceding text he is from Virginia, and that he is an enlightenment thinker. Shorter and less weasel words that Brad really dislikes:

"Like all plantation owners, Thomas Jefferson was dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner, Jefferson wanted the institution to gradually end. His actions and views with regard to slavery and Africans are complex; he has been anaylsed alternatively, as an active foe of slavery, and as an apologist for it.""

Apologist?? That is not exactly a definitive and common term. We need to keep the 'terms' clear and neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, we can go back to the original final draft. I agree that we can't keepneed to avoid morphing the words, if possible. No time to be timid. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral? You are apparently endeavoring to summarize contrasting views, so summarize them, as contrasting views. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, neutral. The introduction summary has appropriate references that give the readers information that there is division among historians concerning whether Jefferson was either a foe or pro slavery. Quite possibly Jefferson could have been both. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely dependent on slavery economically. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery was harmful to both slave and free man alike. His Enlightenment views on Africans and the institution of slavery are considered complex. Many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others do not share this view, criticizing various inconsistencies.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The only issue is that the Howe source stated "slave and master". A freeman could be a slave master A free man is undefined as Yopienso mentioned. We need to stick with the source. As mentioned before, I am against morphing the paragraph words, yet, is their a source that states "freeman" over "master". That may be the a neccessary change unless a reference can be found that states "slave and free man". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Did the Enlightenment have a view on Africans? We cannot say that, if it is not the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson was a spokesperson for the American Enlightenment. Roseburg (2009), The Revolution in Geology from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, p. 245 states the Thomas Jefferson was a child of the Enlightenment. Are you, Alanscottwalker, saying that Jefferson's rational views on slavery were not part of the Enlightenment? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: To argue, without a source, that Jefferson's views on slavery were part of the Enlightenment is WP:SYNTH.--Other Choices (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you guys are overthinking this. When you all die, new editors will come in here and change it, so don't write this thinking it will be set in stone for all eternity. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE we put allot of work into being as neutral as possible. Not sure where your hostility is coming from. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You like throwing that word 'hostile' around don't you? Nothing hostile coming from me. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Were Jefferson's views on Africans part of the Enlightenment thinking or contemporary racism? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary racism. Race and slavery had nothing to do with the Enlightenment. As Finkleman makes clear, there were many slaveowners of his day whose views were more "enlightened" than Jefferson's. I don't think the word "enlightenment" should even be used in the paragraph.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Enlightenment would belong further up in the intro, where we mention his intellectual pursuits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes: I removed "Enlightenment" and changed "free man alike" to "master"; added "of slavery". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery morally unsupportable to both slave and master. His views on the institution of slavery and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies.""Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed :"morally unsupportable" to "harmful". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and master. His views on the institution of slavery and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, criticizing his inconsistencies."" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The second is better, though you should replace "to both slave and master" to "society" and delete "criticizing his inconsistencies or change it to "and others also criticize his inconsistencies". You shouldn't merge the view that criticizes his inconsistencies with the view that doesn't see him as an enemy of slavery. Just about everyone notes and criticizes to some degree his inconsistencies.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

'Society' is not clear in terms of it including slaves and Jefferson didn't limit his concern about the effects of slavery to "masters", and if there is one source that says "slave and master" (only?) then I am sure there are others who don't make such a narrow and selective clam. Why are you continuously removing clear language?? We had a version above that was simple and clear, yet, a couple of editors are still tossing a new version back and forth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Second is better but shorten: Strike "economically" as verbiage; strike the rest of the sentence after "harmful". Fine, with Quark's second point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire Virignia state was economically dependant on slavery according to Ferling. We have to go by the sources. The source neither states "society" nor "free man alike". We have to go by what the sources state. The last sentence second section is pointing out that there are those who believe TJ is anti-slavery, and those who disagree and view TJ is pro slavery. I could put that other editors disagree and view that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. That goes along more with Finkleman. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson lived in a Virginia planter society largely economically dependent on slavery. Although a slaveowner himself, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and master. His views on the institution of slavery and Africans are considered complex; many historians have regarded Jefferson as a foe of slavery, while many others disagree, believing Jefferson was not against slavery."" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)" Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Final decision needed and thanks

Thanks for everyone who helped create the final draft paragraph. We are getting close to unlocking the article. I feel that editors generally accept the paragraph as neutral as can be. A final decision is needed. Jefferson is complex, and I believe the reader can sort out whether Jefferson was pro or anti slavery. I believe he was both. The paragraph is sourced and ready to go into the article. My whole point was to have a neutral opening and then the rest of the slavery segment can fall into place. Once the slavery segment is solved and neutralized, then submit TJ for GA status. Once GA go for that FA status. Let's keep these as goals and I believe we can work around any disagreements. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Jefferson was always opposed to slavery, and perhaps sometimes faltered as a human being caught in the throws of reality. GA status? Take a look at the reference section. FA status? Forget about it, too many web page articles used as sources. Books/pages numbers never chance. Websites come and go and their addresses/pages/content always change, even ones like the Smithsonian and TJF. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to go by what the sources state. I personally believe Jefferson was both pro and anti slavery. I would not give up hope on GA or FA status. With the exception of the Indian Policy, I am not sure that there would be any other issues that would be controversial. I do not judge Jefferson for being a slave owner. Let's say Jefferson was a dedicated foe of slavery all his life. The issue of Jefferson was not slavery. I believe the issue was that he just could not stand having an African as his fellow citizen. That is what held Jefferson back in advancing democracy. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jefferson had many close 'Africans' that were part of his extended family, for openers. He interacted with Africans in many capacities and made many efforts to improve their existence while at Monticello and elsewhere. I am sorry but your view is racist and demented. Racist, as you think Jefferson hated (i.e."cant stand") the negro simply because of race, a projection on your part. Demented, as you are only seeing a fragment of the larger picture. I grew out of college while I was in college. How log did it take you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson wanted to deport blacks after their freedom because he did not want them to be citizens. Jefferson always demanded deporatation of freed black slaves and he himself wrote that whites and blacks could not share the same country. Black historians have called Jefferson a racist and a white supremacist. The term racism was invented in the 1860's and only popularly used during the 1930's describing Hitler's policy against the Jews. By modern standards Jefferson could be considered a racist. What source states that Jefferson had close black friends? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cm' Jefferson has qualified his reasons for "deportation" many times. Is there any historical evidence that says Jefferson went through all of this trouble because of e.g.skin color, etc?? THere are sources that say he believed them to be better off in Africa. Given 18/19th century America this was not something that was 'automatically' wrong morally. No one is claiming Jefferson had "close black friends", though it wouldn't surprised me at all if he had. He did however considered most of his slaves to be his "extended family". Several slaves were with Jefferson when Martha was in her death bed just before she died. Doesn't the fact that they were close by at this very private time in Jefferson's life give you 'any' insight into this man? [add:] There is also some other interesting items regarding a particular slave on that page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Internet and snippet sourcing.

It seems to me that editors are arguing points with a lot of sourcing that relies on internet searching and book snippets. Has anyone actually sat down and read any of these books cover to cover? Has anyone read any other books about TJ than ones that agree with their POV? Cmguy continuously pounds on Ferling and or Finkleman as authoritative but has he actually read those books in full or any other book that focuses exclusively on the TJ and slavery perspective? No single author is the be all and end all of TJ and slavery.

In the USA at least, hundreds of books about TJ are available through any public library (an institution that TJ dreamed of) usually at no cost. Most libraries are connected to local and statewide networks of libraries where materials can be requested usually at no cost. In some cases books can be loaned nationwide. I have made use of these networks and continue to read and read about TJ before trying to promote any perspective. Without an overall perspective of TJ there can never be a reasonable perspective given to this article. There is no hurry to complete any content of this article. Please cease the arguing and gain some perspective on both sides of the debate. Brad (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read the books I use (that is where I got them, many aren't available on Google books or elsewhere for free). I believe cmguy777 has as well. You are right though, it is too easy for people too take quotes out of context.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone have all the books written on Thomas Jefferson? Editors have to rely on the Internet to obtain information. I have solid state paper books and Kindle virtual books. The Kindle books however do not all have page numbers and are practically useless in order to make a reference. I tend to concentrate on the slavery issue concerning Jefferson. Finkelman's work on Jefferson can by viewed on line for free and is the fulcrum of the historical view of Jefferson that he was not anti-slavery historical view. Jefferson was a tough guy. I am not sure why that is such a bad thing. Painting Jefferson into an effeminate person who could not deal harshly with slaves is a lie. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am selective with using Internet "snippets". If Google has enough material for an edit I would use the source as a reference. If there is not enough information or a page has been deleted where continuity of information is interrupted then I would not use that source. However, if the material is enough where continuity of information is not interrupted I would use that book source. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that you missed and or ignored the entire point of my original message? Do you have a library in your town? Do you know what a library is? A library is where you go and request books to borrow and use them to learn about things and they even have page numbers. Otherwise you just confirmed what I suspected. You use google book snippets and pick out things that support your POV. Brad (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I do have a library, actually there are three libraries in my community. I have a card for two of the libraries and both have a web data base to find and read the most recent research articles. Google is a powerful research tool that can be used to find information on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. As I said before, I am selective in what I use from any Google books that do not reveal the entire book. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And yes, Brad, I have checked books out at both of the libraries. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the questions laid out in my original message. Not surprising. Brad (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Brad, your interrogation tactics are inappropriate and getting personal. I don't have to answer any of your questions. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you ask me what books I have read Brad, but you do not reveal what books you have read? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Master of the Mountain

There is a new book coming out called Master of the Mountain in October 2012 by Henry Wiencek. This could be shattering for editors who believe Jefferson was a friend of slaves and anti-slavery. Wiencek states that slavery is an "ugly" issue with Jefferson and that Monticello is biased in their view on Thomas Jefferson and avoids anything that is negative concerning Jefferson and slavery. Wiencek states that Jefferson supported slavery for one thing; money and profits. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"..A 'new book', coming out ... This could be 'shattering'..." "Could be"? Cm', this is pathetic. You haven't even read the book and apparently Wiencek didn't read up on TJF's account about Jefferson being the father of 'all six' of Hemings' children. Your ticket theory didn't go anywhere, neither does this 'end run'. Your conspiracy theories are sophomoric. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, *ahem*. Certain facts might be worth our consideration:

• Henry Wiencek, the author of the upcoming book, is a well-regarded specialist in this area, so his new work -- whatever it says -- is going to have a LOT of weight.
• We're going to have to update the slavery section of the article to reflect Wiencek's book. Let's get used to that fact now, to minimize friction when the book actually comes out.
• Kirkus Reviews is calling the book "a well-rendered yet deeply unsettling look behind the illusion of the happy slaves of Monticello." Unfortunately, the rest of the review is currently behind a paywall, which will come down two weeks before the publication date.

Insert : You don't take a new book and use it to rewrite a section. Since you haven't read it yet, and have assigned all this 'weight' to it, claiming it will change the section, it only tells us there is another pov being pushed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Publisher's Weekly has a one-paragraph review with the following statement: J"efferson, asserts Wiencek, began to prevaricate about slavery after computing 'the silent profit' of 4% per year from the birth of slave children. This meticulous account indicts not only Jefferson but modern apologists who wish to retain him as a moral standard of liberty.

Insert : Hogwash. All we have here is Jefferson going over investments and profits and making recommendations to a friend. From this one act it seems you are ignoring a life time of evidence showing Jefferson making numerous efforts to end slavery and to make their lives better while slaves. Anyone who can ignore all of this obviously has a different pov in mind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So anyway, perhaps "shattering" is an overstatment, but this book is going to have a big negative impact on the scholarly consensus about Jefferson and slavery. Brace yourselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Insert : This goes on the assumption that the book has something that the other books don't. Got any idea as to what? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding, "this book is going to have a big negative impact on the scholarly consensus": while this book appears it will have very pertinent information to for us to use, it is not our place to use a crystal ball about its impact. And we will still have to fit it in with the other literature. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What this book may reveal is that Thomas Jefferson was a human. I do not believe that Wikipedia should use the book as an indictment on Jefferson's character. There is nothing inherently bad with profit motivation. Weincek himself may have written this book to make a profit. I was not intending to make Master of the Mountain the ultimate source on Jefferson. My main purpose for mentioning the book is that Weincek apparently discusses Jefferson and slavery and that he pointed out the Monticello.org presents Jefferson in a positive fashion, purposely avoiding any negative or "ugly" aspects of slavery. I am not sure what Weincek's views are on Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately experience seems to demonstrate that these sorts of discussions tend to bring in those who appear to have an agenda, and unfortunately this whole year plus long work on Jefferson and slavery has impressed me as an attempt to portray Jefferson mostly negative. Now it appears that there are individuals who might like to use this book to portray Jefferson as some Colonial version of Hitler (exaggeration to make the point), with new secrets exposed that show us a Jefferson we never knew. As I've said before, the impression from reading the talk page gives the impression that Finkelman and maybe a few other supposedly highly respected historians would like to make Jefferson a monster. As a casual observer, this isn't coming from any book by these people (because I haven't read them) but from WP editor talk page exchanges. Now regardless of whether the books by these prominent individuals are factual or not, we need to change the dialogue on these talk pages so that casual readers don't feel there is an agenda on the part of our own editors or the authors of the sources being used. I fear that if this continues, many people will begin to distrust this article. And THAT is unacceptable and not in keeping with the mission of WP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This talk about a book, not even published yet, on how it will have a 'lot of weight' and will 'change the section' is reaching. Unless the book offers new historical evidence, writings, 'something', we can only assume it will be another rehash on Jefferson. Well, when Weincek comes out with the book, we'll just have to give it a number and put it on the shelf with the hundreds of other sources. "Weight"? Facts have weight. From what I've seen around here, 'opinion', like hot air, is usually resorted to when there are few/no facts to support a particular pov. This is why the Jefferson page has a long history of pov parading in the form of commentary. Evidently someone wants to perpetuate this practice at skewing the established facts.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but "facts" very often aren't, especially in history. History is very much the art of collecting, evaluating, and interpreting sources. It's (arguably) a fact that Jefferson was born in 1743. But, strictly speaking, even that he wrote the Declaration of Independence is "a myth people agree to believe", given that he had input from Adams and Franklin (whom we can thank for "the pursuit of happiness") and copied parts from Hobbes, and had other parts, much to his chagrin, mangled by the Continental Congress. Calling Jefferson the author is a simplified and convenient version. It's not wrong, but it also is not an ironclad "fact", and we must be aware of these nuances and simplifications. Anyways, in one of the rare instances where I agree with Gwillhickers: WP:CRYSTAL applies, and until the book is available, has been read, and, hopefully, we have some in-depth reactions to it, discussing it seems premature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your view on facts. Is there any particular facts you have that undermine all the other facts surrounding slaves lives and how they lived and were treated? You're right about one thing -- trying to breath life into a book that hasn't even been published, let alone read, is premature. It's merely more of the desperate reaching we have seen here ever since more facts have been introduced to the section.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately our education system until college appears to teach history in a simplified fashion as a collection of "bumper sticker" quotes and facts. I think it's important to be mindful that young children come to WP to seek information, and we shouldn't have to worry whether we are swaying them one way or another on talk pages, much less the article itself, by the way we conduct ourselves as editors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why the section should be comprised of established historical facts -- it gives a much more accurate insight. All the commentary was obviously added to obscure this. We already have a neutral commentary about historians in the first paragraphs. Any additional commentary should be from more than once source and balanced, so I have begun making these corrections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Founders Intent: Colonial version of Hitler made me laugh like hell :) And you're correct that when it comes to TJ and anything about Sally Hemings and or slavery, there has been a relentless drive here to portray TJ as the monster the historical revisionists are making him out to be. Nothing new has been discovered about TJ just reinterpretation of previous historians and facts for a political and financial agenda. Brad (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New content

Will someone please explain what makes this book any more special, or revealing, than all the other sources? Does the book produce new evidence that overturns all the other evidence?? Come on, some one explain why this book 'will have' so much 'weight' over the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read my earlier post. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't we just agreed that speculating on an unpublished book is futile? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Gwillhickers believes he has a monopoly on the "facts" and that all "facts" need to be approved by Gwillhickers. That is ownership of the article, when every edit has to be approved by Gwillhickers and that any sources not approved by Gwillhickers are not "facts" but "hot air" commentary that needs to be edited from the article. Ownership is violation of Wikipedia articles. There has been a signifigant effort to eliminate POV verbage from the article. Jefferson is neither called a racist nor cruel in his handling of slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : You're trying to play the simpleton again. Once again, by blocking important facts and filling the page with selected commentary it is very easy to paint a misleading picture. Also, the practice of belaboring a detail (Jefferson's assessment of profits from slave births) and trying to stretch it into something that overshadows Jefferson's many efforts at opposing slavery, along with the (very) many efforts made to improve the quality of slave's life is plain gutter sniping and dishonest and needs to be addressed also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My irony meter just blew up. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This page seems to do that...[4] ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If commentary is meant that this historian said this and the historian is not considered fringe, then that commentary could be put in the article. Editors can balance the commentary. No Jefferson was not Hitler. To promote slavery in the article as a beneficial institution for blacks, making Jefferson look or appear to be a "good" slavemaster, is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you need to be reminded that the slavery section of this article is about TJ and slavery; his experiences, practices and thoughts. It's not a section to make commentary on slavery as an institution outside the scope of TJ. Facts about how TJ managed his own slaves is very relevant whether you like it or not. Brad (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a double standard in fact checking. "Facts" that present Jefferson in the best manner are kept, however, any critical analysis of Jefferson and slavery is given the boot or taken from the article while a one sided view of slavery is presented and viewed as a noble institution to help the "inferior" blacks. That is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Cm' you are displaying incoherent behavior and once again are not responding to what was written. As has been pointed out to you immediately above your 'response' and at other times, the section is about Jefferson and slavery. How he treated and provided for his slaves is important. These are facts that have been long established, and the 'evidence' for this is Monticello it self, the way it was run, how slaves were treated along with testimony of slaves themselves, and others, cited by RS's. In the mean time the section is filling up with opinionated commentary again, (that gutter snips at and cites isolated details) as if the discussion for 100's of sources for Jefferson had never occurred. Once again, as we discussed before, because there are 100's of (often conflicting) sources for Jefferson, a simply neutral commentary is needed at the end of the section, while the rest of the section should consist of established historical facts long cited by RS's. Your running around talking about a book that hasn't been published and which you haven't even read yet is not helping the article. Evidently discussing these things with you is a waste of time.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Jefferson discouraged physical violence on his plantations, he himself did not want to administer punishment. However, to emasculate Jefferson, when in fact whippings did take place on his plantations is inaccurate. Jefferson carried a European whip with him and preferred the threat of force, over actually using force. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting "Slaves and slavery"

I've copyedited the section, taking care not to change meaning. Troublesome passages remain.

1. The reader is told twice about Jefferson selling 50 slaves; one needs to go.  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

2. I changed "When he was chairman of a committee to revise Virginia's laws, and colleagues offered legislation to allow slave owners to voluntarily free their slaves, Jefferson decided not to include their changes in the revised laws," to "As chairman of a committee to revise Virginia's laws in the 1780s, Jefferson decided not to adopt legislation suggested by his colleagues allowing slave owners to voluntarily free their slaves," but am not sure that is true. The source doesn't seem to say exactly that.

3. This sentence needs clarification: "In 1809, he wrote to Abbé Grégoire, whose book argued against Jefferson's claims of black inferiority in Notes on the State of Virginia. Jefferson said blacks had 'respectable intelligence,' but did not alter his views. Yopienso (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re item 3 from memory, a black mathematician had written TJ disputing the claims made in "Notes on Virginia" about the intelligence of blacks. TJ responded to his letter as said. Brad (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I assume this is wrt to Benjamin Banneker, but read the sentence as if you never heard of Banneker or Gregoire; what does it tell you? Would you wonder which book? No hint of Banneker is included. What does "but did not alter his views" mean in the light of conceding intelligence where before he denied it? If you are able to rewrite the sentence more sensibly, please do. I would try, "In response to a letter from the Abbe Gregoire disputing his claims of black inferiority, Jefferson conceded blacks had "respectable intelligence," but did not change his opinion that blacks were generally less intelligent than whites." Since I'm uncertain of what the sentence means, I'm not changing it in the article. Yopienso (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I may have confused Banneker with Gregoire. If it was Abbé Grégoire the timeline would be correct. Gregoire published a book in 1808 but there's no mention of his correspondence with TJ. Overall I see this as a trivial thing to include in the article but I don't care to argue over it for a week. Brad (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I took it out simply because of lack of clarity, unfortunately taking out two sources with it. I have no problem with someone making it plainer and reinserting it, although I must say that paragraph is not very tight. Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy777 is right. This new book is a good source and the article should reflect it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant to post this in the section immediately above. If you move it, please delete this comment of mine. Yopienso (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Slaves and slavery section evaluation

I believe the Slaves and slavery segment has made vast improvements in getting rid of POV language and giving a fair assessment of Thomas Jefferson and slavery. The Wiencek book has yet to come out. I believe that Jefferson's fear of slave revolt needs to be mentioned and his boycott of Haiti as President. I am not sure how many slaves Jefferson freed is accurate. Letting one slave runaway is not freedom, because by law the person is a fugitive slave during Jefferson's time. Jefferson legally freed two slaves by manumission. Please feel free as editors to evaluate the Slaves and slavery section in order to make improvements to the article. The goal, as been mentioned before, is to get Jefferson to GA and eventually to FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A sham. With all the ignored discussions, the resulting and ongoing debates and the sort of editorship currently being practiced by a couple of editors, the page will be lucky to get a 'C' rating. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Gwillhickers, that the segment is sham. I believe the Slaves and slavery segment is looking better and moving towards the goal of neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

deleted article's reference to Wiencek

I deleted the recently-added reference to a Wiencek interview with Publisher's Weekly because the slavery section shouldn't feature the views of individual historians, especially when the scholarship backing up the view hasn't been published yet. I think we should see a scholarly reaction to Weincek before rushing to include him here. I personally don't have any problem with including this Wiencek statement in the Thomas Jefferson and Slavery article, which allows for much more detail, including significant minority views (which is what we have to consider Wiencek right now, until we see the scholarly reaction to his new book).--Other Choices (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

By definition, all citations are from single historians. His views are hardly "minority".Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no POV in the article statement. Wiencek is a respected historian. You can't censor historians because one disagrees with their views. There are other historians listed in the article. The edit used the term "stated" and this is standard Wikipedia policy. There is no grounds to believe that Wiencek is lying. I see, put the historian on trial because he stated that Jefferson accepted slavery for profits. Jefferson did make a calculation on the his slaves. Censorship is against Wikipedia policy. If you delete Wiencek, you have to delete all the other historians listed in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cm' you are not responding to what has been written, once again. No one suggested to "censor" Wieneck and your remarks about me re: 'ownership', in case you haven't noticed, are nothing more that your usual horn-blowing and chanting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated before, I don't have a problem with adding Wiencek to the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article, but that should be done before he is even considered for inclusion here.

You raise a good point about the direct quotes of other historians' personal opinions in the article. I think it's a bad idea for this general summary (but okay in the TJ and slavery article) unless a Jefferson specialist is particularly eminent (on the level of Gordon S. Wood, for example); perhaps other editors can share their views. Otherwise, the inclusion of pithy quotes from historians can quickly degenerate into the POV pushing that has so often plagued this article. If the other editors are comfortable with the three other direct quotes from historians currently in the slavery section, then I won't delete them, but I am inclined to oppose any more direct quotes in this section.

With that said, as I mentioned above, there's an important difference between your quote from Wiencek and the other direct quotes from historians in the slavery section: The other quotes are cited to books where the reader can check the scholarship in question, where your quote from Wiencek is from an interview with no published scholarship (yet) to back it up. Of course, as you pointed out in the "Master of the Mountain" section, things are going to change when his book actually comes out.

@Quarkgluonsoup, Wiencek's discussion of Jefferson's calculation of the "silent profit" from breeding slaves is groundbreaking scholarship that hasn't been discussed by the community of Jefferson scholars before now, even if many are already inclined to see Jefferson in a negative light on the slavery issue. In other words, on this particular point (Jefferson consciously breeding slaves for profit), Wiencek is a minority of one -- at least for the moment.--Other Choices (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Choices about this quote from an interview, sans the unpublished book. In cases of controversy, it is usual to attribute but it would make sense to avoid that in a summary section, where possible, otherwise it risks becoming a quote farm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If other authors are allowed to be in this section then Wiencek needs to be allowed in the section. Wiencek is an established historian who did research where other historians have ignored or failed to do. Wiencek deserves to be in both this article and the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. An interview with the author is helpful since that gives a better understanding of what his book is about. I take from the article that his book has already been written but unpublished. Wiencek's interview on the book has been published from and establish source, Publishers Weekly, and I believe on its own merit can be in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If other editors want to wait for the book to come out, that is fine. I am for editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is censoring a historian, and I think using such terms against other editors is inappropriate. Censoring would be not allowing a historian to print his views. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is inappropriate! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you can help fix the problem by returning important details about the lives of slaves at Monticello to the section. It might also help if you acknowledge that 'slaves' were people. It is simply dishonest to misrepresent these people in such stereotypical and academic terms just so you can assert your pov. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point Gwillhickers, but you may be referring to a different founding father, James Madison, a contemporary Virginia slave owner. Madision viewed slaves as both people and property having stated that in one of his Federalist Papers. Did Jefferson specifically state that slaves were people? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did refer to Africans as "men" in the original version of the Declaration of Independence, showing that he considered them to be human beings.--Other Choices (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would need to see the quote, however, Jefferson in his notes on the State of Virginia, may inferred that blacks were "orangatans". Jefferson was not even sure if they belonged to the human race or if they were an inferior divergent from the human race. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This reasoning is a problem, here. Cohen among others argues that Jefferson regarded Africans as human, and thus those with inalienable rights, but his racial theories held him back from including them as part of his understanding of society in America, although they should be free elsewhere. You would be wise to demonstrate more subtlety. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson stated that the "Orangutans" prefered black women over their own species. The only interpretation I can make out of that is that Jefferson was linking the black race with the animal kingdom. That suggests that Jefferson did not view blacks as humans. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there another way to interpret Jefferson's "Orangutans" comment? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't interpret; where interpretation is required, we balance various RS interpretations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors can interpret writings of Thomas Jefferson, however, they can't insert their opinions into the article. Is there a source that interprets Jefferson's "Orangutans" comment? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Slaves and slavery section needs major fixing

The section, once again, has become the repository for loads of speculations and false claims. The idea that Jefferson was a "proponent of slavery" is a fringe view. Most historians see Jefferson as either a foe of slavery, or as someone who did not meet up to this measure in his later life. Few, if any, have ever referred to Jefferson as a "proponent of slavery".
Also, now there is only one sentence that covers the lives of slaves, simply citing Sunday's and Christmas off and merely listing a few of the jobs they had to do. There is no mention of Jefferson not over working slaves, a major distinction, nor is there any reference to his strong feelings about misuse, etc. There is no mention that Jefferson trained many of his slaves in highly skilled trades, that he often paid them extra, etc. These are also important distinctions and keeping this information and perspective from the readers is underhanded pov pushing.
Meanwhile the information describing the slaves houses (log cabins with fireplaces, sleeping loft, w/root cellar, gardens, etc, etc) is now instead simply refereed to as "slave quarters were made from logs" leaving the reader to wonder how they actually lived. Of course, with all the selected commentary in place they will get the usual distorted and demented view that has been exhibited on this page before.
Once again, the section needs clean up and clear language introduced while priority to established facts needs to be given to the article. Speculations about 'inconsistencies' and other opinion belongs in the 'Reputation section. The section needs to close with neutral and brief historical commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, I'm responsible for the ill-chosen word, "proponent," and will replace it with the far more accurate "supporter." TJ supported the institution of slavery by participating in it. He supported it by profiting from it. He supported it by owning, buying, and selling slaves and sometimes giving them to new owners. He supported it by obligating slaves to work for him and punishing them if they resisted his management. He supported it by having runaway slaves chased down and returned. He supported it by providing food, shelter, and clothing for his slaves. He supported it by tolerating it. We could also say he promoted or condoned or perpetuated slavery, but "supported" is the most accurate and neutral word I can think of at the moment. Any editor may change this at their discretion. Yopienso (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted a major fixing. The section now starts with an introduction to TJ's inconsistencies, (which, Gw', aren't speculations but documented facts), traces the history of his involvement with slavery as public policy, then segues into his personal participation in domestic slavery, beginning with his acquiring/ownership of slaves, then his view of slaves as persons, then telling what work his slaves did and how they were treated, and ending with emancipation and TJ's death. I've added no sources. Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to keep your line straight. There were inconsistencies (e.g. general silence while president, selling of slaves) and there are speculations about those inconsistencies. Be clear on that and know that speculations from selected historians have caused problems in the past and are doing so now. And it is only your opinion that Jefferson "supported slavery" because he went along with it. More than a flat-earth perspective is needed here. Many dealt with slavery with deep moral reservations. For some reason that is difficult for some certain individuals to comprehend. Requires counting past four. We also need to show how Jefferson provided for his slaves in terms of their livelihood. Much more content about the way Jefferson managed his slaves is needed. i.e.He taught them highly skilled trades, paid some of them extra, gave them numerous liberties, permitted them to grow vegetables, raise chickens, etc. This is the Jefferson biography. Blocking this major effort is rank pov pushing. These things will give the readers much more insight into Jefferson and slavery than the speculations ever will and is precisely why mention of slaves lives under Jefferson is frowned upon by a couple of editors who depend on commentary to present their pov. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as there is POV in stating Jefferson was a nice slave owner I believe their is POV in mentioning his oversears were cruel. Indeed they may have been cruel in their overseeing, even the threat of using the whip could be considered cruel for the slaves, however, I believe the word is POV. There is no definition of the word cruel stated in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cm' this is another one of your straw men. No one said Jefferson was "a nice slave owner". All that has been attempted is to show slave life under Jefferson so the readers don't think he was the heartless slave driver you for some reason would like to paint him as. And don't fall back on the simpleton approach, that no one said Jefferson was cruel. Leaving out basic facts and filling the page with commentary, coupled with the modern day stigma of slavery and racism, indeed effects this and you know it. If you have a problem with showing Jefferson's many attempts to better the lives of slaves then we have serious pov issue regarding your round and round activity here lately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy wouldn't like it if I advocated for inclusion of the fact that for several years the head overseer at Monticello was a slave named Great George. Imagine that; a slave having other slaves whipped and disciplined. Hmmmm. Sort of upsets that old apple cart. Brad (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then we would have to go into detail, about George being over the southern half of Monticello for the three years before he died from his hard life; how he was criticized for lax discipline, while the northern half was overseen by a free white, who was harsh in discipline, etc. (See, Stanton) The details are not worth the space in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I do not have a POV issue concerning Jefferson. Stop being the accuser. Those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. Who was the one who initiated the neutral first paragraph. You keep stating that I stated Jefferson was a "heartless slave driver". I have never made such a statement. The view that Jefferson bettered the lives of slaves is POV since that makes slavery a noble institution, helping the "inferior" blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of saying Jefferson was a "heartless slave driver", only that you would like to do so, as the section comes off like this when there are few facts and lots of commentary. And you have done more than your fair share of accusing, so kindly get off it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopensio, the reader needs to understand there is division among historians and that historians disagree with each other, not that historians are struggling to understand Jefferson in terms of slavery . Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm assuming too much about readers and editors alike. In every field, experts disagree, so I saw no need to acknowledge that evident fact. I think you missed my point on choosing the word "struggle," but that probably shows many other readers would, too. How's this?

Historians disagree on interpretions of Jefferson's complex views on blacks and slavery. Traditionally, many regarded him as a foe of slavery, but more recently, many believe the dissonance between his rhetoric and his business dealings demonstrates support for slavery. Yopienso (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of his biographers (at least between the early and mid 20th century) regarded him as anti-slavery, though historians and scholars of the time usually (though not always) disagreed. Since the late 20th century, even his biographers have admitted that he was not anti-slavery as those earlier biographers insisted.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe the best paragraph is the current neutral one. The term "dissonance" is more concerned with music then historical perspective, in my opinion. I do not assume in anyway that readers understand there is a huge controversy concerning Jefferson and slavery and his views on African Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Library of Congress--primary and secondary source; interesting, but not necessary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Library of Congress as a source I suggest the LOC may be a good source for this article because it provides primary sources with commentary. Example: Commentary on TJ's sales of slaves and his reason and views: Thomas Jefferson sells slaves to satisfy creditors When his father-in-law, John Wayles (1715-1773) died, Jefferson, through his wife, inherited the estate and the debts that came with it. To settle the debts, Jefferson sold dozens of slaves. In these letters to his brother and an overseer, Jefferson reveals both his recognition of the property value of slaves and a human concern and respect for the unity of a slave family. Primary source--a 1752 letter in TJ's handwriting. Excerpt: Finding it necessary to sell a few more slave to accomplish the debt of Mr. Wayles to Farrell and [?], I have a thought of disposing of Dinah and her family. As her husband lives with you I should chuse [sic] to sell her in your neighborhood so as to unite her with him. The same page mentions "his lifelong adherence to the plantation-slave system of agriculture." Yopienso (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I agree, however, this much detail might be best in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Does the LOC have an author that writes the article? I believe something as controversial as Jefferson and slavery needs to have an author quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC) For crying out loud, Cm', this is THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!! No, there is not a single author. But, yes, at the top you can click on "Credits," which gives curator Gerard Gawalt prime responsibility and lists many staff and consultants. Among the outside scholars are Noble Cunningham, Joseph Ellis, Donald A. Grinde, Jr., James Horn, Linda Kerber, Jan Lewis, Pauline Maier, Peter Onuf, Merrill Peterson, Annette Gordon-Reed, Susan Stein, Gordon Wood, Robert Vaughan, Douglas Wilson, and Cinder Stanton. Oh, yes, and, "The Library of Congress is grateful to all of the lenders to this Bicentennial exhibition, especially Monticello, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., and the Smithsonian Institution." Yopienso (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with Cmguy; with all of the scholarship on Jefferson and slavery, there's no need or reason to resort to primary sources, ESPECIALLY in this summary section. There's simply no need or reason to use the LOC, except that it is convenient for web-surfers who don't have time to read history books.--Other Choices (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) This is true. If a couple of editors here had actually read much about the era we would not have this continual bickering over views on slaves and slavery. Yopienso (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillickers, CUT IT OUT

Gwillickers, please immediately reverse your fiddling with a direct quote from Stephen Ambrose. We've been over this before. It is totally unacceptable to change an author's words. Yopienso (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove isolated commentary

Please use Ambrose to source general comments, do not quote him or others. We've been through this. There are too many (often conflicting) sources to give lip service to one source like this. More than 'white American society' regarded Africans as "inferior", this was the common view of most European and other civilizations at that time also. We need to replace Ambrose if you are going to use his narrow view. Also, we need to cut out most of the 'commentary' so as to avoid issues like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not insert the quote from Ambrose. My objection was to your repeat of an indefensible edit.

I'm tired of your ranting and find it unproductive. I've quit trying to understand what you mean by "commentary" and "two plus two" and "count past four" and "hornblowing."

What I understand from the comment to which I am responding is, "Please don't use any source that disagrees with my bias." Yopienso (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : After all these weeks you don't know what is meant by 'commentary'?? If you have participated in the discussions you would know what any of these terms mean. All you have said is your participation in the discussion has done little to help your understanding of ongoing issues here. Until there are more facts than opinion in the section we are still going to have the same issues to deal with. For your education:

• 'Commentary' is an English word. Perhaps a dictionary will clear things up for you.

• The reference to '2 + 2' refers to the typical practice of taking a couple of minor details and attempting to make them look like they add up to 100 or some opinionated 'conclusion'.

• 'Counting past four' . This is sort of the reverse. Refusing to add up all the facts. i.e.some editors will take one or two minor details and will refuse to consider other qualifying facts. They refuse to count past four and look at the greater picture. Seems to happens a lot with a couple of editors.

• 'Horn-blowing' . This usually refers to chanting or repeating the same empty claim in the face of discussions that refute the claim. It can also refer to other intellectually delinquent practices, such as referring to editors/historians with opposing views as apologists or white supremacists, etc.
  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the problems Gw has introduced into the section and refused to correct himself.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"most slaveowners and people of his time"

I changed a sentence from "Jefferson, like most slave owners and people of his time, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and as property" to "Jefferson, sharing the general view of his fellow slaveowners, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and as property." This has been challenged by another editor, so let's talk about it... I think that mentioning the view of "most people of his time" is far too general and inappropriate for the article. Does this include most people in Africa, most people in China, etc.? In my opinion, if we are strictly "true to the source" in this case, it results in an absurd sentence that defies common sense. What do others think?--Other Choices (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

For details, see here.:Ambrose, as editors may recall, specified "slaveholders and many other white members of American society." Here's some history of that Ambrose quote. 1. 2.

I don't care whether we use Ambrose as a source or not, but in order to provide proper context we do need to make clear that TJ was in step with the majority opinion wrt black inferiority. Yopienso (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This dispute arose because Gw (again) changed the words in a quote from an historian. I agree that with your point here that we risk being too general if we try to paraphrase the quote here, so it is best just to leave the quote word-for-word as it comes from the historian. This was how the quote was presented for a while on this article until Gw started messing with the words in the quote. This is a charged topic, (many historians wouldn't even agree with Ambrose that most late-18th century slaveowners viewed blacks as inferior, though Jefferson certainly did) and we would be best to keep our own words and phrasing out of it, and let the historian speak on the matter himself.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Excess detail in "Slaves and slavery"

We had a consensus for a day and a half that the following passage was unnecessary:

He believed they were inferior to whites in reasoning, mathematical comprehension, and imagination. Jefferson thought these "differences" were "fixed in nature" and was not dependent on their freedom or education.[170] He thought such differences created "innate inferiority of Blacks compared to Whites". In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson claimed that blacks prefer the beauty of whites over other blacks, and cited "the preferences of the Orangutan for the black woman over those of his own species".[171] In 1809, he wrote to Abbé Grégoire, whose book argued against Jefferson's claims of black inferiority in Notes on the State of Virginia. Jefferson said blacks had "respectable intelligence", but did not alter his views.[172][173]

What's the consensus now?

Also, this part just sounds like garble to me:In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson claimed that blacks prefer the beauty of whites over other blacks, and cited "the preferences of the Orangutan for the black woman over those of his own species".[171] In 1809, he wrote to Abbé Grégoire, whose book argued against Jefferson's claims of black inferiority in Notes on the State of Virginia. Jefferson said blacks had "respectable intelligence", but did not alter his views. Is there just a personal need to note the Jefferson spoke of orangutans in conjunction with blacks? Whatever in the world does the sentence about Gregoire even mean? Yopienso (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's too much detail for this section; it needs more context then we can give here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no such consensus that this paragraph (or its parts) was unnecessary. It is a very high level overview of his views on blacks, and is very relevant to the section. Until there is consensus to remove it (including from Cmguy777 and myself) then there is no consensus to remove it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the paragraph can be improved in narration, however, I believe their needs to be mention Jefferson's white superiority views and that Abbe Gregorie protested. That is important. I am not sure how to interpret Jefferson's "Orangatans" comment other then he equated the black race with a primate species. In other words, blacks were not part of the human race. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and this is critical in understanding how Jefferson's views on blacks (and thus his justification of owning slaves) differed from most of his contemporaries. His views were very modern, in that they were that of scientific racism, which didn't become common until the mid to late 19th century. Most people of his day didn't view blacks as intrinsically inferior (even he didn't in his earlier pre-French years). Historians make the point that his time in France transformed his thinking into something more theoretical and dissociated from experience than it had been before, and his views on blacks were one manifestation of that. "All men are created equal" wasn't a line Jefferson made up, the line was so common among the elite that it was a bit of a cliche at the time. Though there were some other scientific racists, most (like Washington) didn't think blacks were intrinsically inferior but that their condition as slaves made them subservient to whites. It would thus be wrong to say that Washington (or most slave owners at the time) viewed blacks as inferior or sub-human as Jefferson certainly did after his time in France. His views on blacks and slaves became much harsher after his time in France, and this must be understood to understand his philosophy on slaves and blacks.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Thanks for fixing at least one issue, that Jefferson is considered a foe of slavery and that some do not share the view. I have never read anything that said Jefferson outright supported slavery based on solid historical evidence. I've seen speculations to that effect, based on Jefferson's view of blacks, selling slaves, silence, etc, but no solid evidence, like his years as a lawyer taking on slavery cases, his DOI language, his efforts at emancipation (despite his objections on certain points), outlawing the slave trade, letters, etc. These are landmark and established facts. All the bickering about "silence", and his "views" pale in comparison to these efforts and do not amount to anything that confirms this highly opinionated claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The "white superiority" views are still mentioned, but the Orangutan quote is too much detail, on this score for summary, as we would then have to include others of Jefferson's variable views in quote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Quark does not understand what consensus is. The fact that an edit has stood for over a day while there is activity from several editors is in itself consensus: no one objected, no one removed. We had some tweaking.

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote."

"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Yopienso (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the section above, "Perception of Negro inferiority."

Cmguy, TJ did not exactly equate blacks with orangutans, (or chimps, as he may have meant). In any case, I am a member of a primate species and believe you are, too.

What is the rationale for introducing Gregoire in a summary section? Yopienso (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We could start an RfC on the orangutans, but can't we just agree that we don't need it in summary since the race views are already there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be some source to interpret Jefferson's "Oranguntans" comment. I am not sure the narration makes clear what Jefferson meant by his statement and could lead to misunderstandings by the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So, do you agree then that we can get along without it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That depends. Jefferson's comment on "Orangutans" has to do with Jefferson's view there was a hierarchy of race: whites on the top and blacks on the bottom. There needs to be mentioned that Jefferson viewed there was a hierachy, either with or without the "Orangutans" comment. That had to do with the 18th Century "scientific" belief orangutans were sexually attracted to black women. Here is the source: Miscegenation: Making Race in America Elise Lemire (2002), p. 28 Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that summarized in: He thought such differences created "innate inferiority of Blacks compared to Whites". Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Not completely. I would add the hierarchy comment, since differences does not cover any superiority issues. Lemire stated that Jefferson viewed whites were superior, beautiful, and entailed moral values, while blacks were an ugly, inferior, depraved race. There really is no getting around this view from Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, isn't that exactly what "inferiority" says? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Stating inferiority does no state a hierarchy of race as Lemire noted in Jefferson's "scientific " view point. I believe Lemire's view that Jefferson had a hierarchy of race gives the reader a more focused understanding of Jefferson's view on blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an option, take out he "Orangutans" comment and put in the hierarchy of race comment supported by the Lemire source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is one of the foremost modern scholars of black culture. I linked to a 2010 work of his on July 24. Here's the stable diff. In The Trials of Phillis Wheatley. . . he writes, "To summarize a vast and complex body of literature, involving Francis Bacon, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, many philosophers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were vexed by the question of what kind of creatures Africans truly were--that is, were they human beings, descended along with Europeans from a common ancestor and fundamentally related to other human beings, or were they, as Hume put it in 1753, another "species of men," related more to apes than to Europeans?" Then he quotes Hume's sentiments on white superiority that Jefferson surely echoes, and then mentions Jefferson's comparison of blacks to orangutans.

The article must show that TJ's ideas on race were consonant with the greatest thinkers of his age. We must quell all attempts to portray him as the lone, ugly racist in a colorblind world. He must be set in historical context. Let's remember TJ died more than 30 years before Origin of Species was published. Yopienso (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, there has been no attempt to make Jefferson look as the "lone ugly racist". I agree his scientific views were contemporary for his times, Lemire mentions this. Gates Jr., however, does not specifically mention Jefferson in his book or view. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "egregious racist" instead of "lone, ugly racist." Here are quotes from Quarkgluonsoup:

On July 21, ". . .he was more accepting of it [slavery] than most of his day, and even more on his view of blacks, which was one of an unusually strong scientific racism."

July 22, "strong support for the institution (usually [sic Did you mean unusually?] strong by the standards of his day) and his unusually strong (by the standards of his day) racism."

July 22, "As for race, he was an adherent of scientific racism, which makes his racism unusually cold and strong compared to contemporaries. Usually slavery supporters justified it on economic and cultural grounds without trying to justify it on moral grounds or address the question of the well being of the slaves. Jefferson did, which was highly unusual, and he did it with claiming that blacks were so inferior that they were better off as slaves. I noticed many of his writings on blacks have been removed from the article, such as his comparison of blacks to orangutans. These arguments weren't made often at the time by others.

July 22, "He didn't care about the slaves, and had an unusually strong sense of racism."

July 23, a bulleted argument (partly correct but totally unbalanced) criticizing TJ's attitude and actions toward slaves, including, ". . .and never joined the many others of his generation to push for emancipation or even manumission" as if most slaveowners were freeing their slaves.

July 24, "It is not true that most of Jefferson's day had a low opinion of blacks. [. . .] Jefferson was one of the few of his day to actually argue that they were inferior because of their race."

Today, "Yes, and this is critical in understanding how Jefferson's views on blacks (and thus his justification of owning slaves) differed from most of his contemporaries."

Gates mentions Jefferson many times in the book. Read this review. Yopienso (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact here is that it is hard for many to accept that Jefferson made such a vile statement as comparing blacks to monkeys, though he did. This is directly relevant to his unusually strong racism, when compared to the standards of his day (though not when compared to the standards of the late 19th century). It should stay because it is the most powerful way to demonstrate his views on blacks, which is necessary to understand his philosophy on slavery.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's having a hard time accepting that TJ wrote the following? "Add to these. . .their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species." He is claiming whites are more beautiful than blacks and blacks are more beautiful than orangutans and therefore the males prefer the more beautiful over their own kind. (Today, of course, we know much better than that, and TJ seems not only absurd, but offensive.) What we don't accept it that it belongs in this brief summary. Nobody, AFAIK, is trying to remove it from Thomas Jefferson and slavery.

Please stop insisting TJ's racism was anachronistic and stronger than that of most people of his day. Do you realize when the philosophers Gates mentions lived? I'll wikilink them so you can more easily look them up. Actually, though, you seem well informed enough to know roughly when they lived, so your persistent reference to the late 19th century may stem more from duplicity than ignorance. I've certainly provided enough documentation to refute your claim. Yopienso (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a simple historical fact that Jefferson's racism was of the stronger late 19th century brand of scientific racism (based on an ideology that sees blacks as biologically inferior) than of the late 18th century brand of racism (which didn't see them as intrinsically inferior but in worse shape purely do to nurture rather than nature).Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopeniso, I would have to read the Gates Jr. view on Jefferson in his book. My concern with Gates Jr. is that he currently seems to be more of a celebrity historian, but I am sure he must have written serious research articles or books. I believe the best alternative is to put Lemires quote in for human hierarchy. Jefferson clearly was using strong racial language with his "Orangutans" quote that in modern day use would be considered racist. Human hierarchy is best and explains Jefferson's rationalist view of slavery. I have honestly been attempting to give Jefferson the benefit of any doubt, but his language is always callous and blunt towards Africans. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do read Gates. . . and Lemire. Lemire: "The perception that orangutans desire African women goes back to the late sixteenth/early seventeenth centuries and was widely credited by the scientists of Jefferson's day. Jefferson would have been familiar with the frontispiece of an English translation of Linnaeus entitled A Genuine and Universal System of Natural History, which showed an orangutan snatching an African woman from her human mate." Yopienso (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, Yes, in other words, Jefferson's view of sub-Sahara Africans was largely accepted by the people of his day and was not some 'exceptional view' invented by Jefferson. The simpleminded attempts to portray Jefferson as "the lone, ugly racist in a colorblind world" smacks of close minded academic snobbery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I modified the Slaves and slavery section adding Jefferson's hierarchy of race. I removed the original "Orangutan" quote and replaced with "primal desire". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Excess detail' (break)

Cm' though your edit is somewhat better Chernow doesn't say anything about "a primal desire". And aren't all desires primal? Even the desire for love? Also, does anyone know what Jefferson based his claim about Orangutans on? I scanned two sources on N.S.V. for 'Orangutan' and came up empty. In what section of 'Notes does the statement occur? Did Jefferson spell it differently? These are the two sources checked. 1, 2. No one ever denied that Jefferson regarded Africans as inferior, but remember, this did not stop him from pursuing an end to slavery anyway. As has been echoed by a number of editors, Jefferson was indeed a complex man, so it takes more than a simple mind to figure him out. Again, most of the world then was 'racist' (i.e.preference for race). Unfortunately, most of thew world today is still racist, so trying to stick Jefferson in a specimen jar and displaying him as something cruel and unusual is typical 21st century presentism and narrow mindedness. Again, his views of race did not effect his moral view on slavery, we need to be clear about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See my post of 05:49, 6 August 2012. The spelling was "oranootan" or "oran-outang" or "orang outang," etc. Yopienso (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I used the Lemire reference and combined with Chernow. Jefferson believed that blacks envied white beauty just as an Orangutan envied a black woman. In 1797 there was report that an Orangutan abducted a black women for a mate. Lemire was pointing out Jefferson's hierarchy of the human race: whites on top while blacks are on the bottom. I substituted "primal desire" for the "Orangutan" quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Link: Orangutans and humans Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Blacks envied white beauty. Jefferson only claimed blacks preferred whites while also claiming the Orangutan preferred humans. He did not use idea as a basis to say that blacks were not human. That is your rant. 2+2 does not equal 100. Sorry. All you have is a lot of modern day stigma to prop up your 'view'.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposed ultimate continuation of slavery all his life

The lede section states that Jefferson opposed the ultimate coninuation of slavery all his life. What about Jefferson's opposition to the Missouri Compromise and the Lousiana Purchase that spread slavery. I have read that Jefferson was for the spread of slavery in order that emancipation could take place. Jefferson was opposed to mass abolition of blacks in areas where blacks were a signifigant part of the population. Cohen mantains Jefferson promoted the spread of slavery in the Southwest. Jefferson believed that a diffusion of slavery would lead to an end of slavery. Does the lede reflect Jefferson's view that the spread of slavery would end slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson the "d" democrat did deals

- Jefferson sought to establish and govern a democratic republic by opposing unmerited power by wealth, whether it originated in land, slaves, trade, finance, or manufactury. The democratic impulse in early American history divided several ways as described in Wilentz, “The rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln”. In every dichotomy found in a world of 85% nuclear-family farms, north and south, Jefferson opposed privilege and promoted democracy.

- (1) Urban trade v. rural farming: TJ threw in with the rural, free N. and slave S. (2) East speculators v. west agricultural: TJ with the agricultural, free N. and slave S. (3) manufactury v. wage earners: TJ with the wage earners, free N. and slave S. (4) Finance v. individual: TJ with individual, laborer, farmer, manufacturer. (5) pro-slavery v. anti-slavery: TJ with anti-slavery, manumissionists and colonizers. An article referencing Jefferson’s “pro-slavery” snippets should do it in the context of legislators who were SLAVE-HOLDING yes but also farmers, westerners, artisan-mechanics, laborers, manufacturers and manumissist-colonizers who could make a national political majority with the FREE north, something the successor 1860 Democratic Party could NOT achieve in the South.

- And, lest we forget, the revolutionaries of 1776 could SINCERELY believe that slavery would gradually die out -- before the advent of thee-story American cotton gins and Industrial Revolution textile mills that ended domestic British Indian cloth production, reshipping processed Indian cotton for sale cheaper than that locally manufactured.

- Having (a) ended colonialism, (b) founded a republic and (c) expanded democracy larger than in any previous society in his lifetime, Jefferson DID punt on (d) abolishing slavery by the 1830s, telling Coles (Gov-IL) the task belonged to the next (Coles') generation, which, as it happened, was achieved before Coles' death in 1868. Even a section addressing Jefferson as slave-owner should do it in the context of Jefferson's life's-work, and explain the background of WHOM Jefferson was trying to persuade and to what PURPOSE in the passage quoted.

- Adopting this editorial policy here would have avoided the unfortunate misrepresentation of a Jefferson quote following Gabriel Prosser's 1800 slave revolt. Amidst a frenzy of revenge lynchings, Jefferson said that ON CONVICTION in a court of law, a man held slave who would die for his liberty should be deported to freedom rather than executed as a "troublesome" slave who may or may not have been connected to the slave revolt. This has been interpreted as Jefferson seeking adoption of legislation for wholesale forceable deportation of Virginia's slave population, which it was not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)